Courts, tribunals, and child custody

Now the dust is settling, shape is emerging from the parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements after separation. The most obvious result is that the Federal Government is going to take its time responding to the inquiry's report, tabled on Monday. There are too many people with too much interest, and in many cases passion, for the Government to risk alienating swathes of the community.

The report covers more old ground than it first seemed. The idea that shared parenting (but not shared custody) should be the norm is already enshrined in legislation. In this case, it is social and judicial attitudes, not simply legislation, that need to change. The concept that mediation and conciliation are useful first steps is decades old, first put in the family law in 1975, and was standard Family Court practice until this and previous federal governments strangled it of funds.

The most significant changes are the requirements for all divorcing parents to attend compulsory mediation, and to do it through a shopfront, such as a Medicare office. This will be seen by some as intrusive, and by others as unnecessary. But if it helps divorcing parents make the best possible decisions at a time which can be so difficult, it is worth pursuing.

The establishment of the Families Tribunal would be an administrative change, rather than a significant one, should it get up. But this does not look likely. It is opposed by lawyers - not surprising, as it is a lawyer-free zone - and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Larry Anthony, sounds wary. The Family Court could probably do the job of the proposed tribunal if it had the funds of the proposed tribunal.

Proposals about enforcing decisions on residence, contact and financial support have been well received, as the ability of either parent to flout arrangements is a major source of conflict for parents and causes difficulties for children. But the proposals are still problematic. Would a court take custody away from a mother who would not let the father see his children? Would a court take the driver's licence away from a father who is not paying child support, making it harder for him to see the children and earn an income? Would such decisions be in the best interests of the children?

Proposed changes to child support payments will need refinement for particular circumstances. At the moment, poor fathers find it hard to make the required payments and care for themselves, while wealthy fathers find it all too easy to hide income. The proposals aim to change this.

Most of the proposals, in effect, aim to offer the range of approaches and services meant to be provided by the Family Court. The court has not done its job properly, partly because of funding problems and partly because of attitudinal ones. But in such a difficult area as divorce, it is far more important to offer appropriate services to parents and children than to care too much about who provides them.

Go, Harvey, go, for aspirational green

What a happy marriage between affluence and ecological protection, between the whisper of leaves on the dry rainforest floor and the rustle of notes in the till. Who said developers can only think in concrete terms - and the more concrete the better? The retail entrepreneur, Gerry Harvey, is not the first to see a market for private housing that combines all mod cons with the pleasure of the bush at its most appealing - unspoilt but unthreatening, pristine but proximate. His particular contribution is to put a distinctive green stamp on the development while maximising his return on investment.

An entrepreneur of less imagination, when told half of the 60 hectares he bought at Kurrajong three decades ago was so ecologically important that it ought to be preserved in its original state, might have washed his hands of it - by returning it to public ownership, for example, and leaving it for the state to look after. Not Mr Harvey. He has recognised a new market in an old formula. This is private housing with shared private acres, but not the usual retirement deal of high-maintenance golf links and a bit of low-maintenance bushland tacked on. This is high-maintenance bushland, and only greenies - prepared to put in the hours to keep the lantana at bay, ensure the creek and lagoons stay fit for platypuses and the gums plentiful for koalas - need apply.

The attraction of a 30-hectare private wilderness divided into 15 two-hectare lots is surely powerful. It is perhaps enough to attract the premium prices expected, of up to $1 million each. But there are strings attached. Potential buyers will have to satisfy Mr Harvey of their environmental credentials and, if chosen, will have to pull their weight in the sanctuary with weeding and tree planting. That raises interesting questions.

Mr Harvey might handpick the 13 other owners (one lot will belong to Mr Harvey; another jointly owned by all the buyers) who will share his little corner of bushland heaven, and seal by legal covenant their obligation to conserve and restore it. But what happens when the backsliding starts? Or when an owner, grown tired, wants to delegate conservation responsibilities? Or when enough owners, to defray the costs of preserving it, think it a good idea to share paradise, for a small charge, with the public? How long can Mr Harvey's writ run? At least long enough, it must be hoped, for the platypuses and the koalas to settle in and secure their places, and so keep their human co-tenants up to the mark.